P.K.KARTHA, J. - (1.) The issue raised in this application lies within a narrow compass. The applicant is claiming arrears of pay and allowances for the period preceding the date of his actual promotion to the post of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. The respondents have resisted this claim.
(2.) The applicant has since retired from Government service on attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years. The Departmental Promotion Committee recommended his name for promotion to the post of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax at its meetings held on 2nd and 3rd January, 1989. The recommendation of the DPC had to be approved by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC). The ACC, however, did not approve the recommendation of the DPC in regard to the promotion of the applicant. Thereafter he made a representation to the authorities concerned. The AOC reconsidered his case and gave its approval to his promotion. Accordingly the respondents issued an order on 27.11.89 promoting the applicant to the grade of Chief Commissioner of Income -Tax in the scale of Rs. 7,300 -7,600/ - with effect from the date he took over charge of the said post. He took over charge as Chief Commissioner of Income Tax on 27.11.89. As an officer junior to him had been promoted earlier, the applicant made further representation, as a result of which the respondents decided to give him notional promotion with effect from 5.9.89, i.e., the date from which his junior took over as Chief Commissioner of Income Tax on promotion. In their letter dated 16.8.90 conveying this to the applicant, the respondents, however, stipulated that he would not be entitled to any arrears of pay for the period from 6.9.89 to 27.11.89, in accordance with the Department of Personnel and Training's instruction contained in their contention dated 12.1.88.
(3.) We have heard the applicant in person and the Learned Counsel for the respondents. Both sides have cited before us the case laws in support of their respective contentions and we have duly considered them.;